Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
> Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:
>> Gilles Chanteperdrix wrote:
>>> Jan Kiszka wrote:
>>>> Wolfgang Mauerer wrote:
>>>>> ... and for reading the contents of the hostrt data.
>>>> Just realized: Please also update clocktest. Should already work with
>>>> the new clock ID, but requires a cosmetic output patch.
>>> Yes, I thought about that. Maybe even if clocktest uses the new
>>> clock_id, we could drop the example?
>>> I do not think it is a good idea to provide as an example code which
>>> uses the internals of the implementation (though it makes sense to use
>>> the implementation internals in the clocktest code). And if we remove
>>> that, only clock_gettime(CLOCK_HOST_REALTIME) remains, which does not
>>> seem to need an example.
>> I would not keep it as an example, but as a test case for checking that
>> nothing is wrong with the data on the shared page. Which does not fit
>> quite well into clocktest. Although I have no problem with just omitting
>> the stuff if reading the (internal) content of the data page is deemed
>> inappropriate.
> Well, I see nothing wrong with checking the internals at the beginning
> of clocktest is the clockid passed to clocktest is CLOCK_HOST_REALTIME.
> But Jan may have another opinion, since he is the one who wrote this code.

If clock_gettime(CLOCK_HOST_REALTIME) succeeds, I don't think we need to
do anything special. But if it should fail, dumping a more detailed
reason based on those additional checks in the example would be helpful.


Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1
Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux

Xenomai-core mailing list

Reply via email to